![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
A proposed fix to the justice system.
Jul. 17th, 2013 09:01 pmOur justice system is broken. As pointed out to me by a friend, George Zimmerman got let off on a technicality: insufficient evidence. It's not that he was proven to have not done it, it was that they didn't have enough evidence to prove that he DID do it, even though it was fucking obvious to anyone with a brain that he did it.
And he's not the only one. How many violent murdering scumbags are let out into the world for lack of evidence? Or dangerous rapists, for that matter? Too many.
Even worse: once you're tried for a crime, you can't be tried for the same crime again, no matter what new evidence turns up. It's called "double jeopardy." Which is good in some ways, but in the case of violent murderers and rapists (like George Zimmerman; yeah, did you know he's both?), it sucks because we're basically saying "You're a menace to society and everyone knows it but we can't prove it so LOL we'll just let you out and hope you don't do it again. Enjoy your freedom, shit-face."
So here's my proposed fix: along with Guilty and Not Guilty, jurors should be able to rule "Inconclusive," if there isn't enough evidence. A ruling of Inconclusive would still let the fucker free, but it would nullify double jeopardy, so that if enough new evidence comes up, the pigfucker will be able to be tried again for the same crime, like he should have the first time.
Granted, it could be abused, even if it's only applicable to highly dangerous criminals/certain types of crime like murder and rape. So to cut down on the likelihood of abuse, it would require the prosecutors having to prove to a judge that there's enough new evidence to be worth the time and effort, and to justify re-arresting the guy.
There may be other things someone would have to think of to perfect it, but really, letting dangerous fuckers like George Zimmerman or even serial killers good at covering their tracks, that's just bullshit and something needs to be done about it. And I think my idea is the way to go about it.
And he's not the only one. How many violent murdering scumbags are let out into the world for lack of evidence? Or dangerous rapists, for that matter? Too many.
Even worse: once you're tried for a crime, you can't be tried for the same crime again, no matter what new evidence turns up. It's called "double jeopardy." Which is good in some ways, but in the case of violent murderers and rapists (like George Zimmerman; yeah, did you know he's both?), it sucks because we're basically saying "You're a menace to society and everyone knows it but we can't prove it so LOL we'll just let you out and hope you don't do it again. Enjoy your freedom, shit-face."
So here's my proposed fix: along with Guilty and Not Guilty, jurors should be able to rule "Inconclusive," if there isn't enough evidence. A ruling of Inconclusive would still let the fucker free, but it would nullify double jeopardy, so that if enough new evidence comes up, the pigfucker will be able to be tried again for the same crime, like he should have the first time.
Granted, it could be abused, even if it's only applicable to highly dangerous criminals/certain types of crime like murder and rape. So to cut down on the likelihood of abuse, it would require the prosecutors having to prove to a judge that there's enough new evidence to be worth the time and effort, and to justify re-arresting the guy.
There may be other things someone would have to think of to perfect it, but really, letting dangerous fuckers like George Zimmerman or even serial killers good at covering their tracks, that's just bullshit and something needs to be done about it. And I think my idea is the way to go about it.